The undeniable relevance of caste census

ENNAI: In 2010, the Indian Parliament passed a unanimous resolution (with both the Congress and BJP on board) calling for caste to be enumerated as part of the 2011-Census. As per the 1931-Census, when caste was last enumerated, there were 4,147 castes in the country apart from the Depressed Classes/Untouchables (as they were called then).

The Anthropological Survey of India has identified 6,325 castes. Unfortunately, the UPA-2 government made a hash of the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) in 2011 which threw up a ludicrous figure of 46 lakh castes and the results were never released.

In 2018, the Government of India (GoI) promised that the next Census would collect the population data of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, in 2021, GoI did a volte face and announced that it would not enumerate caste as part of the next Census. The GoI reiterated this stand before the Supreme Court in a case filed by the Maharashtra government in 2021. At the same time, the BJP supported the Bihar Caste Survey of 2023 while the results of the Karnataka Caste Survey of 2015 held by the Congress government are yet to be released.

Such flip-flops by leading political parties show that the enumeration of caste in the Census is a highly contentious issue. Powerful forces are at work trying to make it happen and to sabotage it. There is as much vote-bank politics in not counting caste as in counting caste.

To count or not to count

The British conducted the first Census between 1865 and 1872, at different times in different parts of the country. The first simultaneous Census across the country was done in 1881.

Thereafter, the British conducted the Census every 10 years except in 1941 (due to the Second World War). The Censuses conducted between 1881 and 1931 enumerated caste.

In the first Census conducted by independent India in 1951, the GoI ordered that caste should not be enumerated. However, an exception was made in respect of the 1,234 castes in the SC category and the 698 tribes in the ST category. These have been enumerated in every Census from 1951 onwards.

In his essay, ‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ (1955), Dr BR Ambedkar wrote the following about the folly of not enumerating caste in the 1951-Census: “I cannot illustrate these points by reference to facts and figures. The Census which is the only source of information on these points fails to help me. The last Census omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature of the Indian Census since its birth. The Home Minister, who is responsible for this omission, was of the opinion that if a word does not exist in a dictionary, it can be proved that the fact for which the word stands does not exist. One can only pity the petty intelligence of the author.”

Without detailed caste-wise Census data, we cannot look at India’s socioeconomic reality as it is, and plan for inclusive development. We cannot monitor whether India’s development has been equitable across castes and communities and take remedial measures.

In the absence of Census data, we are forced to rely on the occasional caste-based surveys conducted by government and non-government agencies. It is not a pretty picture. An overview of India’s highly inequitable development across castes is shown in the charts.

Non-enumeration of caste in the Census, even if it was well-intentioned to begin with, has massively short-changed the various marginalised castes and subaltern groups which constitute the overwhelming majority of India’s population. And, it has helped the elites, namely, the upper castes and dominant OBCs, to corner a disproportionate share of the nation’s assets, incomes, sources of credit, and positions of power and influence under the cloak of caste-anonymity.

Mischief of tribalism

The India’s elites have been always convinced that their success is due to their innate ‘merit’ and that they are winners in a Darwinian survival of the fittest. Very few would agree if you told them that their success, to a significant extent, is due to tribalism.

Tribalism is a way of thinking and behaving in which people passionately favour members of their ‘in-group’ and discriminate against members of ‘out-groups’. It can make them even die or kill for their group. Tribalism is an omnibus term that encompasses casteism, racism, communalism, linguistic fanaticism, regionalism, and also your fervent support for your political party, or sports team.

Tribalism is the default state of human societies. Both evolution and culture have ingrained it deep in human psyche. While casteism is a peculiarly Indian affliction, tribalism in one form or another is a universal one.

Tribalism can lead to serious diversity deficit and reduce democracy to a government for the elites. Reservation or compensatory discrimination is one solution to the problem but not the only solution. The mischief of tribalism can also be mitigated by periodically gathering data about all essential social categories, monitoring the social group-wise composition of positions held, assets owned, etc, making the data available in the public domain, and stoking political debate for taking corrective action.

Here are some of the common arguments advanced against, and for, the enumeration of caste in the Census.

Against caste Census

Argument 1: It would accentuate caste consciousness, lead to caste conflicts and fuel demands for increased reservations.

A 2017-study by MIT scholars Evans Lieberman and Prerna Singh, evaluating over 1,300 Census questionnaires in 156 countries over two centuries, found that enumerating racial, ethnic and religious identities does increase the possibility of competition and conflict between social groups. This is to be expected.

But this cannot be a ground for not conducting the decennial Census or not enumerating essential social categories in the Census.

Whether we like it or not, caste has been the indubitable reality of Indian social life for the past 3,000 years and continues to be so even today. A 2016-study by NCAER showed that only 5% of Hindu marriages are inter-caste.

The use of caste surnames and the display of caste marks on the body reinforce caste identities on a daily basis. Residential segregation by caste persists in most villages, and also in many towns. Not a day passes without news of caste atrocities somewhere or other in the country. Therefore, no meaningful discussion of India’s socio-economic problems is possible by leaving caste out.

It should be noted that India enumerates religion, language, and region in the Census which are as divisive as caste, if not more. Casteism is not going to wither away merely by not counting caste in the Census any more than communalism, linguistic fanaticism and regionalism will disappear by not enumerating religion, language and region in the Census.

Regarding ‘demands for increased reservations’, the real problem is with governments’ propensity to implement reservations for political considerations without quantifiable empirical data. The availability of caste-wise Census data will actually help curb such arbitrary decision making.

We’ll be able to objectively and transparently debate and dispose of the claims of the Marathas, Patidars, Jats or any of the upper castes for reservations. We’ll also be able to identify precisely the dominant OBCs, SCs, and STs which are hogging the lion’s share of their quotas and recalibrate reservations suitably.

Argument 2: It would become an administrative nightmare.

No Hindu has any existential doubt as to what his caste is and to which category his caste belongs. When the GoI has been able to smoothly enumerate the 1,234 castes in the SC category and the 698 tribes in the ST category in all the Censuses since 1951, it’s difficult to understand why the enumeration of the 4,000-odd other castes most of which are specific to particular States should pose an intractable problem.

The reasons for the UPA-2 government’s botched up SECC were:

• It was not held under the Census Act, 1948. Disassociating the Census Commissioner made the exercise casual and perfunctory.

• It was done through the Union Ministries of Rural Development and Urban Development which did not have prior experience of conducting sociological/anthropological surveys.

• The GoI should have enlisted sociological/anthropological experts to draw up a draft list of castes (together with alternative caste names and the names of sub-castes and larger caste groups) specific to each State, published the draft list online inviting suggestions and comments from the public before finalising it, and given only that list to the enumerators.

• The questionnaire was very poorly designed and asked open-ended questions about caste. The enumerators couldn’t distinguish between genuine castes, alternative caste names, larger caste groups, sub-castes, surnames, clan names, gotras, etc.

So, the SECC in 2011 threw up an absurd figure of 46 lakh castes.

In contrast, the Bihar government did a neat job of its recent Caste Survey by giving enumerators just the list of 214 caste names specific to Bihar, with the 215th category labelled ‘Other Castes’. If the British could do it and Bihar could do it, why can’t the GoI do it?

In support of caste Census

You can’t remedy caste discrimination without taking caste into account.

It’s counter-intuitive and yet true. You cannot solve the problems of special groups that have been historically discriminated against without taking the group identity into account and gathering data group-wise.

The special groups may be caste groups, racial groups, ethnic groups, women, trans persons, orphans, persons with disability, nomads, etc., It’s important to note that the demand for enumeration always comes from victims of discrimination, not the perpetrators.

For example, Germany does not enumerate people by race in its Census. This has actually worked to the disadvantage of the Black peoples who have started a private, country-wide, online survey called Afrozensus. The results of Afrozensus show that anti-Black racism is widespread in Germany and entrenched in institutions.

The 2021-report of the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called for express recognition of race, ethnic origin, sex and other factors in national Censuses, and the making of the data public to increase understanding of discrimination and to monitor the effectiveness of policy measures to counter it.

Enumerating SCs, STs and OBCs is a legal and administrative imperative.

The Constitution of India provides for reservation for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha (Article 330), State Legislative Assemblies (Article 332), Panchayats (Article 243D(1)), and Municipalities (Article 243T(1)). After the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1993), the Constitution also provides for reservation for OBCs in Panchayats (Article 243D(6)) and Municipalities (Article 243T(6)).

For reservations to be made in electoral constituencies, caste-wise, area-wise Census data of SCs, STs and OBCs are essential.

The Census data should also be the basis for implementing, monitoring and recalibrating reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs in admissions to educational institutions (Article 15) and public employment (Article 16). Caste-wise Census data is necessary to correct what statisticians call Type 1 error (wrongful inclusions of undeserving castes) and Type 2 error (wrongful exclusions of deserving castes), and also to ensure that a few dominant castes do not corner all or most of the benefits.

As per Article 340, the National Commission of Backward Classes is mandated to investigate the conditions of OBCs and make recommendations as to the steps to be taken to improve their conditions. There is also a Backward Classes Commission in each State. Evidently, these Commissions cannot perform their duties satisfactorily without proper caste-wise demographic data of OBCs.

The GoI’s reason for enumerating only SCs and STs from the 1951-Census onwards was that these categories enjoyed reservations in electoral constituencies, admissions to educational institutions and public employment. This was shaky logic because OBCs also enjoyed reservations in admissions to educational institutions and public employment in many parts of the country long before Independence, and do so throughout India now.

Post-1993, OBCs are entitled to reservations in the electoral constituencies in Panchayats and Municipalities.

In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), also known as the Mandal judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that that the OBC list (which was based on the 1931 Census) should be revised periodically. So, the GoI should have enumerated OBCs in the 2001 Census. But it did not.

Whenever States like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha and Jharkhand tried to implement reservations for OBCs in elections to the local bodies, the High Courts and the Supreme Court denied them, on the grounds that there was no caste-wise data of OBCs. On the one hand, the GoI doesn’t include caste as a parameter in its decennial Census. On the other, the courts demand caste-wise data of OBCs for upholding reservations in elections to Local Bodies.

Hence, the enumeration by caste of persons under the OBC category is a legal and administrative imperative as in the case of SCs and STs. It is not a ‘policy matter in which Courts should not interfere’ as claimed by the GoI.

American sociologist Martin Nicolaus argued that we should study not only the ‘down people’ (poor and the subalterns), but also the ‘up people’ (wealthy and the powerful) to understand how the latter got there. So, even though enumeration by caste of persons other than SCs, STs and OBCs is not legally necessary, it is administratively desirable.

While Census is a Union subject, the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, empowers all States and local bodies to gather the necessary statistics. So, every state can do caste surveys like Karnataka (2015) and Bihar (2023) did. But the Census data carries more authority and are less contested.

Correct a mistake

The GoI’s reluctance to enumerate caste as part of the Census is legally indefensible and administratively unwise. Eminent sociologist Satish Deshpande, “As a modern republic, India felt duty-bound to abolish caste, and this led the State to pursue the conflicting policies of social justice and caste-blindness.” It turned out to be a case of falling between two stools.

The policy of social justice cannot be pursued effectively without caste-wise data. The policy of caste-blindness is pointless when various rulings of the Supreme Court have held caste to be a ‘relevant criterion’, ‘sole criterion’ or ‘dominant criterion’ for defining a socially and educationally backward class.

The decision not to enumerate caste in the Census was a corollary of the policy of caste-blindness. In retrospect, this was one of independent India’s biggest mistakes. It has perpetuated and exacerbated caste inequalities while shielding the Indian elites’ privileged position from the glare of public scrutiny.

It’s time to correct this mistake so as to enable a more just allocation of collective resources.